John, concerning your response on my last post: If you understand the term, I think you'll be hard pressed to give me an OBJECTIVE propositon concerning aesthetics. If you can, you'll have made a breakthrough that would stymie all of Western Philosophy. Art History is filled with quibbling, principled, schools, and they are, yes, very subjective. You repeatedly define your tastes on this site, taste is not an objective phenomenon.

Ahhh, but beauty is SO objective. Almost anyone can recognize a good cartoon when they see it, but have trouble explaining just what it is that makes it so. I think John does a great job at explaining some of the 'important' elements in GOOD cartoons, and art in general. There are certain things that make cartoons pleasing to the eye and it's difficult to pin them down with words, but John does it, and that's why this blog is so popular with artists. A lot of art schools may quibble about the details of what makes good art but there are some big principles that you need to form a good foundation and no amount of detail can fix a poorly constructed piece.

I watched some Popeye cartoons from the 60's this weekend (the King stuff) and they looked horrible. I had my wife put them up for sale on Amazon immediately. But, I would not sell one of my Ren & Stimpy DVD's no matter how much you offered. Get it?!?!?

Old news now, but still havn't had the conditions of objectivity met, via Mr. Hoek's vagaries. I'm not calling for the liquidation of principles, but a curb to pedantics, and am an admirer of Mr. Kricfalusi.